Voters in Washington and Colorado went to the polls in November and decided it was OK with them if people possessed up to 1 ounce of marijuana for personal use. They’re already lighting up in Washington, and Colorado pot smokers will get their day in January when their new law goes into effect.
All of this is subject to change, however, since the federal Controlled Substances Act technically makes pot use, cultivation and possession illegal, according to the Huffington Post. The Obama Administration is already hosting meetings to discuss how it should respond to the new state level laws in Washington and Colorado.
Right now, the Post reports, several options are on the table — none of which include allowing the state laws to stand:
- Having federal prosecutors bring low-level marijuana users up on charges and then striking when the defendants file motions for dismissal based on the state laws. This would enable the federal government to gain a court ruling that says the federal law has dominance over the state legislation voters approved.
- Letting the U.S. Justice Department file lawsuits against the two states to stop them from setting up regulation systems for marijuana and taxes on its sale.
- Removal of federal grants for the two states, which essentially strikes them in the purses.
In an earlier Patch story, we asked readers if they thought Florida should consider legalizing marijuana like Colorado and Washington have. The majority of people who commented thought it was time for voters to have a say.
Now Tampa Bay, we want to hear from you about this new development in the issue! If the Obama Administration takes action against the two states, is that appropriate in your eyes? Or would it be too Big Brother like and an infringement on states’ rights? Share your thoughts in the comments section.
So it was Obama's fualt that states don't have the right to police themselves on the issue of pot. Hmmmm... research much? Harrison Act of 1914 - Wilson (Democrat) gave the states the right determine penalties for Narcotics Uniform State Narcotics Act (1925) - Coolige (Republican) gave the Federal Government the right to procesucute and control enforcment Narcotics Federal Bureau of Narcotics founded (1930) - Hoover (Republican) Marjana Tax Act (1937) - Thedore Roosvelt (Democrat) the taxation of medical marjana under the Harrison Act Narcotics Control Act (1956) - Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) mandatory sentencing for drug use Creation of DEA (1973) - Nixon (Republican) Anti Drug Abuse Act (1986) - Regean (Republican) reenforced madatory sentencing for drug offenses So Kip, by history it clearly shows that it was Obama who took away the rights of the States for enforce the Drug Laws for their states. It seems to me that Republicans want big government as much as Democrats. Just the sheep that follow them believe their taglines they are for smaller government and lower taxes. The last President to raise taxes on the wealthy, George H. Bush. Raise of military spending and monitoring of the citizenship Patriot Act George W. Bush. Both parties want big government. Please check your facts and history before making an agrument.
Go ahead, kip, keep complaining and listening to loudmouth Rush. But don't confuse the Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly BS with the truth about what the Federal government does or doesn't do, as Michael D. has so clearly shown to all of us.
Bush was a saint compared to Obama when it comes to the DEA trampling on States rights.....but don't worry, you won't hear many lefties speaking out against it. Heck, you won't hear many righties speaking out either and if they do, it's like Kip......it's anti-Obama and not anti-Federalism. I love how Sherri, the author of article, states "according to the Huffington Post." Wow, I didn't realize HuffPo decided what's Constitutional or not. Guess I should quit reading for myself and simply rely on indoctrinated people to tell me what to think. C'mon, Sherri, if you are going to attempt to be a journalist, do some freaking research on your own....form your own opinion. Read the 10th Amendment and you will have an answer to the question. Contrary to popular belief, the Federal Govt isn't God, nor is it our mommy or daddy....even though the Obama administration has put forth the idea of the "Federal Family." What a phrase.............well count me as part of those who abhor that family. The States created the Federal Govt.....not the other way around. The Fed is the baby....child...offspring of the States. Again, how many of you let your children dictate what occurs in your lives?? 10th Amendment.....look it up.
It really boils down to: Tyranny vs. Liberty. Freedom vs. Oppression.
both parties trample on states and individual rights. We give away a little more of our liberty and freedom each day. The data center that holds all text messages, phone calls, emails is gorgeous.
They have been doing that for decades, just selling it as the will of the people. It is fear tactics.
I have known alcoholics who posed far more danger to themselves and others than pot smokers. If alcohol is legal, marijuana should be as well. Whatever the concerns for pot use are, they apply to a legal drug of choice, booze. But the government tried to outlaw alcohol. When that failed, made it a good source of tax income. The constitution of the USA allows for states to have power not specifically given to the federal government. I have visited Utah, where alcohol is forbidden for sale except at private clubs, and have heard of "dry" counties in some states. The people of Washington and Colorado have the right to laws pertaining to intoxicating substances, as far as I know. What happens, though, when someone under the influence of pot travels to a nearby state and gets arrested there? I suppose DUI is DUI, and that state's penalties would prevail. There are much bigger fish to fry than to grind the wheels of the federal government over this issue. (Could it be that the feds may not like the states getting tax revenue here?)
Have you heard of William Binney? He verified what many already knew. But hey, why worry about matters of true importance.....we have Fiscal Cliff nonsense to talk about for the next few weeks.
Many of the kids smoking pot today believe, having done their own research, that pot is not only not harmful but that it is a safer drug than alcohol and or smoking cigarettes. (Which they may even witness their parents and other adults abusing.) There appears to be legitimate support for this point of view in the research. I have 2 concerns: My first concern is that young adults are getting caught up in the legal system for a drug that is no more destructive than alcohol or cigarettes and, my second concern is that because many young people might, because they have been given incorrect information about pot, be inclined to question the validity of information given to them about serious drugs like heroine and cocaine. I would think it better to be in a position to educate my kids about pot int he same way I have about alcohol & Cigarettes. I prefer the approach of giving people accurate information, free of religious or political rhetoric & bias, legalize pot & use the extensive amount of funding we currently spend on capturing, prosecuting & incarcerating drug users to help those who are addicted to life endangering drugs like cigarettes, alcohol, heroine, crack etc.